DEVELOPMENT-INDIA: ‘Protato’ Leaves Bad Taste in Critics’ Mouth

By Ranjit Devraj Reprint | | Print |

Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI, Jun 13 2003 (IPS) - India’s plans to develop an indigenously developed, genetically modified (GM) potato are a distorted way of addressing the needs of the poor and hungry in India, environmentalists and food security experts here say.

This week, Manju Sharma, head of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) that falls under the Ministry of Science and Technology, announced that the protein-rich ‘protato’ would be cleared for commercial production within six months.

Sharma said she was confident that the GM potato, which has genes from the amaranth plant spliced into it, would ”reduce the malnutrition problem in the country”.

But this drew a welter of protests from globally-known campaigners for biosafety, like Vandana Shiva, who have called the ‘Protein Potato’ or ‘protato’ a hoax.

”First it was ‘Golden Rice’ with its claims to solve hunger, poverty and blindness and now we are being sold a ‘Protein Potato’ hoax as part of an anti-hunger plan,” said Shiva, who leads the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Environment (RFSTE).

Shiva said that in the same way that ordinary fruits and vegetables were a far superior source of Vitamin A than genetically modified rice, the best source of protein and other nutrients, was the amaranth plant itself – rather than potatoes spliced with amaranth genes.

India has so far not cleared GM food for public consumption. But this country sent back 10,000 tons of GM corn-soya blend, imported by the voluntary agencies CARE and Catholic Relief Services, following protests by environment groups.

Another globally-known campaigner against GM food crops, Devinder Sharma, said he suspects the ‘protato’ to be a Trojan horse that would lead the way for other GM foods to be produced in the country or imported under pressure from the global biotechnology industry.

”In the first place India has no shortage of food or nutrition, though access to it is another matter. This country has 50,000 tonnes of surplus grain rotting away in the granaries and is already the world’s leading producer of fruits and vegetables as well as dairy products,” Sharma said.

Leading economists like Jean Dreze, a professor at the Delhi University and one of the leaders of the ‘Right-to-Food’ campaign, have spent years pleading for a better distribution system of grains and food products so that they become more affordable or accessible to the bulk of India’s billion-plus population. But they say that there have been few changes.

”It is as if agricultural scientists have suddenly woken up to the lingering crisis on the nutritional front and are now desperately looking for technological remedies to fight mass hunger and deprivation induced by colossal mismanagement of resources,” Sharma remarked.

Said Shiva: ”Amaranth is not the only source of protein in India’s rich biodiversity and cuisine – a variety of protein-rich pulses and legumes have long been a staple of the Indian diet and these provide far better nutrition than GM-potato ever can.”

Shiva said it would be impossible for the biotechnology department to begin commercial production of GM-potato unless it is prepared to violate existing rules on biosafety and ignore the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), as it did in the case of genetically modified, Bt cotton developed by the U.S. seed giant Monsanto.

The RFSTE has litigation pending in the Supreme Court since January 1999 against the biotechnology department for clearing large-scale, open field trials of Bt cotton without seeking the approval of the GEAC, which falls under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

In November 2001, another biosafety advocacy group, Gene Campaign, filed litigation in the Delhi High Court charging the government with negligence in allowing large-scale field trials to be conducted by Monsanto without appropriate monitoring, regulation and safety precautions.

But following that, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Lt, the Indian subsidiary of Monsanto, has itself complained to the GEAC against spurious hybrids floating around in the lucrative cotton seed market and cutting into its own profits.

Environmentalists are worried about the prospect of genetic contamination through accidental pollen release, given an environment where seed giants and a bureaucracy that they say is overeager to usher in GM crops, are operating.

Shiva said that going by the record so far, the department of biotechnology and other government agencies have proved themselves inadequate in handling sensitive biotechnology-based farming.

Undaunted by the criticism and litigation against it, the department is going ahead full-steam ahead with plans to introduce more GM foods. Recently, it embarked on a Swiss funded project worth 2.6 million U.S. dollars to engineer Vitamin A genes into local varieties of rice.

In the past, the biotechnology department’s Sharma has justified the GM crop technology initiative on the grounds that soil fertility and arable land mass were steadily going down. ”We need to double our food production to feed the growing population and we need plants with better nutritional value and resistance to pests, droughts and other stressful conditions,” she said.

But Devinder Sharma and other campaigners say the department is barking up the wrong tree under pressure from the rapidly expanding global biotechnology industry.

”What is conveniently forgotten is that a majority of the acutely malnourished people that the supporters of golden rice and other GM foods crops claim to be targeting are people who cannot afford to buy ordinary rice from the market even at highly subsidised rates,” he said.

Added Sharma: ” The problem cannot be addressed by providing nutritional supplements through genetically modified rice, but by bringing in suitable policy changes that forces the governments to ensure food for all.”